Re: Safety Culture

["J. J. Rozental" <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>]

At 09:05 AM 7/22/97 -0500, you wrote:
>	Since this thread has grown from referring to nuclear plant
>operation to include Society's safety culture, some might be interested in
>the tremendous progress in that area. In 1906, when the U.S. population
>was 86 million, there were 80,000 people killed in non-motor vehicle
>accidents, whereas in 1988, when the U.S. population was 246 million,
>there were only 47,000 such deaths, a five-fold reduction in mortality
>rate. This progress has been continuous: between 1978 and 1988, per capita
>death rates decreased by 18% for all accidents, by 16% for motor vehicle
>accidents, by 27% for occupational accidents, by 11% for accidents in the
>home. Some insight into the effects of safety culture can be seen by
>comparing different nations with different safety cultures: annual
>mortality rates per 100,000 population from accidents is 23 in England and
>Japan, 30-35 in Germany, Sweden, and Australia, 39.5 in U.S., 50-60 in
>Switzerland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia, 62 in France, and 73 in Hungary
>and Cuba. The difference between France and England amounts to a full year
>difference in life expectancy for the average citizen. For comparison, all
>the risks of nuclear power, including reactor accidents, radioactive waste
>(assuming that all deaths caused over millions of years were concentrated
>on our generation), transport accidents, routine emissions, etc reduce our
>life expectancy by only 0.2 days (1.5 days according to Union of Concerned
>Scientists, the principal anti-nuclear organization).    
>
>Bernard L. Cohen
>Physics Dept.
>University of Pittsburgh
>Pittsburgh, PA 15260
>Tel: (412)624-9245
>Fax: (412)624-9163
>e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu
>
=======================
Your information is really significant. As a matter of fact your name is
reference on this subject.

However, I would like to draw the radsafers attention In the way that we
figure the comparison of risks, analyzing nuclear and others risks. For us
(radsafers) the conclusions are very simple to understand.  -- Many of us
argue: -- What is the difficulty for the general member of the public to
understand?  This is so clear!

I'll give the answer:

-- First: Our jargon to the public is not adequate. The commun public does
not understand our language;

-- Second: We do not understand conveniently the fears of the public;

	I can give one recent example in your own country. Recently Radsafers were
discussing  the "incident" in a School in New Jersey  during a "simple"
demonstration. Remember?

"WOODBRIDGE, N.J. (AP) - What was supposed to be a  simple classroom
demonstration of a Geiger counter turned into a  real-life radioactive scare
when the device went   crazy, forcing the closure of a high school."... 

And then from  the following days discussion, I select some topics.  One
good  conclusion for me was:
"The New Jersey incident is a golden opportunity to educate the public about 
radiation and radiation risks.  We should take advantage of it.

Susan McElrath
mcelraths@rscpo1.wilm.ge.com"

===============
This happened in The United States of America

Best Regards

Rozental <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>